8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
1/111
The Pennsylvania State University
The Graduate School
College of Engineering
AN IMPROVED MODEL FOR THE MICROWAVE
BRIGHTNESS TEMPERATURE SEEN FROM
SPACE OVER CALM OCEAN
A Thesis in
Electrical Engineering
by
Sandra L. Cruz Pol
1998 Sandra L.Cruz Pol
Submitted in Partial Fulfillmentof the Requirements
for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
August 1998
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
2/111
S. Cruz-Pol iii
ABSTRACT
An improved model for the microwave brightness temperature seen from space over calm
ocean is presented. This model can be divided into two sub-models, the atmospheric absorption model
and the ocean surface emissivity model.
An improved model for the absorption of the atmosphere near the 22 GHz water vapor line is
presented in the first part of this work. The Van-Vleck-Weisskopf line shape is used with a simple
parameterized version of the model from Liebe for the water vapor absorption spectra and a scaling of
the model from Rosenkranz for the 20-32 GHz oxygen absorption. Radiometric brightness
temperature measurements from two sites of contrasting climatological properties San Diego, CA
and West Palm Beach, FL are used as ground truth for comparison with in situ radiosonde derived
brightness temperatures. Estimation of the new models four parameters, related to water vapor line
strength, line width and continuum absorption, and far-wing oxygen absorption, are performed using
the Newton-Raphson inversion method. Improvements to the water vapor line strength and line width
parameters are found to be statistically significant. The accuracy of brightness temperatures computed
using the improved model is 1.3-2% near 22 GHz. In addition, the Hill line shape asymmetry ratio
was evaluated on several currently used models to show the agreement of the data with the new model,
and rule out atmospheric vapor absorption models near 22 GHz given by Waters and Ulaby, Moore
and Fung which are based on the Gross line shape.
In the second part of this work, a modified ocean emissivity model is presented. The
brightness temperature measured above the sea surface depends, among other things, on the oceans
specular emissivity. We investigate the contribution to the brightness temperature from the specular
ocean emission. For this purpose, satellite-based radiometric measurements from the
TOPEX/Poseidon project are employed together with near-coincident radiosonde profiles from fifteen
(15) stations around the worlds oceans and TOPEX altimeter measurements for filtering of low wind
conditions. The radiosonde profiles are used to compute the upwelling and downwelling emission and
the opacity of the atmosphere. The radiative transfer equation is applied to the radiosonde profiles,
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
3/111
S. Cruz-Pol iv
using the atmospheric model developed in the first part of this work, in order to account for
atmospheric effects in the modeled brightness temperature. The dielectric properties of sea water are
found from the modified Debye equation using salinity and sea surface temperature data from NODC
ocean depth-profiles. The ocean complex permittivity model developed by Klein and Swift and, more
recently, by Ellison is tested and revised. The average error in the modified emissivity model, over the
range 18-40 GHz, is found to be 0.0037, which in terms of brightness temperatures, translates to a
model error of approximately 1K.
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
4/111
S. Cruz-Pol
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ....................... .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. ..............
LIST OF TABLES ...................... ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. ...
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1
1. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 1
1-1RADIATIVE TRANSFEREQUATIONS.................................................................................................. 1
1-1.1 Ground-Based Radiometer ...................................................................................................... 3
1-1.2 Satellite-Based Radiometer ...................................................................................................... 5
2. MICROWAVE ATMOSPHERIC ABSORPTION MODEL ....................................................... 12
2-1ATMOSPHERIC ABSORPTION .......................................................................................................... 13
2-1.1 Line Shapes ............................................................................................................................ 15
2-2CURRENT MODELS AND THEIR LIMITATIONS ................................................................................. 152-2.1 Atmospheric Absorption Line Shapes .................................................................................... 17
2-3EXPERIMENT DESCRIPTION AND CALIBRATION ............................................................................. 22
2-3.1 Radiometer Data .................................................................................................................... 22
2-3.2 Radiosonde Data .................................................................................................................... 25
2-4ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ............................................................................................................... 28
2-4.1 Hills Ratio Test ..................................................................................................................... 28
2-4.2 Parameter Estimation: Newton-Raphson Iterative Method................................................... 30
2-4.3 New Model Retrieved Parameters ............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. ..... 31
2-4.4 Error Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 34
2-5CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................ 39
3. SEA SURFACE EMISSIVITY ........................................................................................................ 41
3-1CURRENT MODELS AND THEIR LIMITATIONS .................................................................................. 413-1.1 Specular sea surface emissivity model ................................................................................... 41
3-1.2 Wind-roughened emissivity Model ......................................................................................... 44
3-1.3 Air-Sea Stability ..................................................................................................................... 47
3-2DATA SETS ..................................................................................................................................... 49
3-2.1 TOPEX/Poseidon :Altimeter and Radiometer data ............. .............. .............. .............. ........ 49
3-2.2 Radiosonde Data .................................................................................................................... 52
3-2.3 NODC Ocean Temperature and Salinity Profiles.................................................................. 55
3-3ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ............................................................................................................... 59
3-3.1 Model for TB using raob, NODC, and altimeter data .............. .............. .............. .............. ... 593-3.2 Selection of the Maximum Time and Space Separation .............. .............. .............. .............. . 59
3-3.3 Evaluation of the Model Performance ................................................................................... 62
3-3.4 Modified Dielectric Model Parameter Estimation................................................................. 64
3-3.5 Error Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 68
3-4CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................. 72
4. CONCLUSIONS .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. . 74
4.1CASE STUDY:RELEVANCE OF THIS WORK TO THE TOPEX/POSEIDON ALTIMETRY MISSION ......... 74
4.2CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK................................................................................................. 79
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 82
APPENDIX A OXYGEN MICROWAVE SPECTRUM PARAMETERS ............................... 88
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
5/111
S. Cruz-Pol i
APPENDIX B GOFF-GRATCH FORMULATION FOR WATER VAPOR DENSITY AS AFUNCTION OF TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE. .................................................................... 89
APPENDIX C TABLE OF MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION AND COUNTS OF SEASURFACE TEMPERATURE AND SALINITY PER MONTH PER RAOB STATION FOR
THE PERIOD OF 1900 TO 1990. ........................................................................................................ 91
APPENDIX D FORTRAN PROGRAM FOR THE NEW ATMOSPHERIC MODEL .......... 93APPENDIX E FORTRAN PROGRAM FOR THE MODIFIED OCEAN SURFACEEMISSIVITY MODEL .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ........ 95
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
6/111
S. Cruz-Pol ii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1.1THE POWER RECEIVED BY AN ANTENNA IS EQUIVALENT TO THE NOISE POWER DELIVERED BY
A MATCHED RESISTOR. IF THE BLACKBODY ENCLOSURE IS AT TEMPERATURE T, THE BRIGHTNESS
TEMPERATURE,TB, MEASURED BY THE ANTENNA IS DEFINED AS BEING EQUAL TO T.
[CHANDRASEKHAR,1960] ................................................................................................................... 2
FIGURE 1.2.PASSIVE REMOTE SENSING WITH(A) UPWARD-LOOKING RADIOMETER AND (B) DOWNWARD-LOOKING RADIOMETER. ...................................................................................................................... 3
FIGURE 1.3.DOWNWELLING BRIGHTNESS TEMPERATURE AS OBSERVED BY AN UPWARD LOOKING
RADIOMETER FORU.S.STANDARD AND DRY ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS AND FOR THE
HYPOTHETICAL CASE ABSOLUTELY NO WATER IN THE ATMOSPHERE. THE CONTRIBUTION AROUND
22.235GHZ ARE MAINLY DUE TO THE RESONANT WATER-VAPOR EMISSION. ...................... .............. 5
FIGURE 1.4.PASSIVE REMOTE SENSING WITH(A) UPWARD-LOOKING RADIOMETER AND (B) DOWNWARD-
LOOKING RADIOMETER. ...................................................................................................................... 6
FIGURE 1.5EFFECTS ON THE SEA SURFACE EMISSIVITY DUE TO (A) FREQUENCY,(B) SEA SURFACE
TEMPERATURE,(C) SALINITY AND (D) WIND SPEED. (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE PLOTS ARE
GIVEN FORF=37GHZ,S=35 AND TS=280K.) .............................................................................. 9
FIGURE 2.1WATER VAPOR ABSORPTION VERSUS FREQUENCY FOR AT A PRESSURE OF 1013 MBARS, AIR
TEMPERATURE OF 290KFOR NO WATER VAPOR IN THE ATMOSPHERE AND FOR WHEN THERE IS
WATER VAPOR(2G/CM3). [ULABYET AL.,1980] .............................................................................. 14FIGURE 2.2WATER VAPOR ABSORPTION VERSUS FREQUENCY FOR SEVERAL MODELS AT A PRESSURE OF
1013 MBARS, AIR TEMPERATURE OF 290KAND RELATIVE HUMIDITY OF 50%. (L87=LIEBE 87,
L93=LIEBE 93,W76=WATERS 76 AND UMF81=ULABY,MOORE AND FUNG 81). .. .............. . 16
FIGURE 2.3(A)EFFECT OF LINE PARAMETER VARIATION BY 10% ON TOTAL ATMOSPHERIC ABSORPTION.
(B)DIFFERENTIAL EFFECT OF LINE PARAMETER VARIATION WITH RESPECT TO NOMINAL L87R93
MODEL. THE ARROWS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE FIGURE INDICATE THE FREQUENCIES MEASURED IN
THIS EXPERIMENT. (SAME ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS AS FIG.2.2). ............................................... 21
FIGURE 2.4ZENITH BRIGHTNESS TEMPERATURE INTERCOMPARISON BETWEEN RADIOMETER UNITS J1
AND J2 FOR ABSOLUTE CALIBRATION PURPOSES. MEASUREMENTS WERE CONDUCTED DURING
DECEMBER1991 AT SAN DIEGO,CA AT (A)20.7GHZ,(B)22.2GHZ AND (C)31.4GHZ. THE DATA
HAVE BEEN SMOOTHED BY A 30 MINUTES RUNNING AVERAGE......................................................... 24
FIGURE 2.5TOTAL ERROR IN CW LINE PARAMETER DUE TO A 0.5KUNCERTAINTY IN MEASURED TB AND
THE CORRECTION OF THE RAOB RELATIVE HUMIDITY READING, VERSUS NUMBER OF RAOB PROFILES
USED IN THE ESTIMATION (SEE SECTION 3.2 FOR A COMPLETE DISCUSSION). A TRADE OFF BETWEEN
THE AMOUNT OF DATA USED AND THE MINIMUM ERROR IN PARAMETER ESTIMATION YIELDS AN
OPTIMUM VALUE OF 21 RAOB PROFILES, PROVIDING A TOTAL OF 108 DATA POINTS. ............... ........ 27
FIGURE 2.6HILL RATIO COMPARISON BETWEEN VARIOUS ATMOSPHERIC MODELS SHOWING AGREEMENT
OF THE CHOSEN WATER VAPOR ABSORPTION LINE SHAPE WITH THE RADIOMETER DATA.(SEE TEXT
FOR EXPLANATION OF MODELS' ACRONYMS).................................................................................... 29
FIGURE 2.7BRIGHTNESS TEMPERATURE SPECTRA COMPARISON BETWEEN RADIOMETER DATA (WVR)
AND RADIOSONDE-DERIVED DATA WITH NEW AND NOMINAL PARAMETERS FOR A VAPOR BURDEN OF
(A)2.9 G/CM2,(B)2.3 G/CM
2, AND (C)1.3 G/CM2. (NOTE THAT ONLY FIVE CHANNELS WERE IN
OPERATION DURING THE RAOB LAUNCHES FOR CONDITIONS (B) AND (C)). .............. .............. .......... 32
FIGURE 2.8PLOT OF THE DIFFERENCE TB-TBL87R93 FOR(A) HUMID (WEST PALM BEACH),(B)
MODERATE (SAN DIEGO) AND (C) DRY (SAN DIEGO) CONDITIONS.NOTE THAT TBLIEBE87IS
EQUIVALENT TO OUR NOMINAL MODEL (CL=CW=CX=1.0 AND CC=1.2). (ONLY FIVE CHANNELS
WERE IN OPERATION DURING THE RAOB LAUNCHES FOR CONDITIONS (B) AND (C))............... .......... 33FIGURE 2.9PERCENTAGE ERROR IN THE IMPROVED MODEL FOR ATMOSPHERIC ABSORPTION USING THE
1962U.S.STANDARD ATMOSPHERE AT SEA LEVEL WITHRH=50%. THE ERROR IN THE IMPROVED
MODEL MODEL ERRORS ARE DUE TO BIAS AND RANDOM MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTIES IN
RADIOMETERTB, THE CORRECTION FOR RAOB RELATIVE HUMIDITY VALUES LESS THAN 20% OR
GREATER THAN 100%, AND THE UNCERTAINTY IN THE RADIOSONDE READINGS FOR PRESSURE,
TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY. ........................................................................................ 37
FIGURE 2.10PERCENTAGE ERROR IN THE IMPROVED DOWNWELLING TB FOR THE RADIOSONDE PROFILESUSED BY THE ESTIMATION ALGORITHM. MODEL ERRORS ARE DUE TO BIAS AND RANDOM
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
7/111
S. Cruz-Pol iii
MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTIES IN RADIOMETERTB, THE CORRECTION FOR RAOB RELATIVE
HUMIDITY VALUES LESS THAN 20% OR GREATER THAN 100%, AND THE UNCERTAINTY IN THE
RADIOSONDE READINGS FOR PRESSURE, TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY. THE ERROR IN
THE PREDICTED BRIGHTNESS LIES BETWEEN 1.5% AND 2.0%. ERROR BARS IN THE GRAPH
REPRESENT THE STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE PERCENTAGE ERROR FOR ALL THE PROFILES USED IN
THE ANALYSIS. ................................................................................................................................. 38
FIGURE 3.1MECHANISMS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MICROWAVE EMISSION OF A WIND-ROUGHENED SEA
SURFACE INCLUDE LARGE GRAVITY WAVES, SMALL CAPILLARY WAVES AND SEA FOAM. ................ 46
FIGURE 3.2WIND SPEED MODEL RELATING 0TO WIND SPEED FOR THE MCW ALGORITHM AS
CALIBRATED FORTOPEX ALTIMETER. .............................................................................................. 51
FIGURE 3.3LOCATION OF THE RADIOSONDE LAUNCH SITES. (SEE TABLE FOR COORDINATES). ............. 53
FIGURE 3.4HISTOGRAM OF THE RANGE OF PATH DELAY VALUES FOR THE DATA USED IN THIS WORK. .. 54
FIGURE 3.5AVERAGE SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES VARIATION PER MONTH FOR STATION 9, LOCATED
IN THENORTH HEMISPHERE (BLUE), AND FOR STATION 29, LOCATED IN THE SOUTH HEMISPHERE
(PINK). THE ERROR BARS REPRESENT THE STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR EACH MONTH. ................... 56
FIGURE 3.6AVERAGE SALINITY VARIATION PER MONTH FOR STATION 9, LOCATED IN THENORTH
HEMISPHERE (BLUE), AND FOR STATION 29, LOCATED IN THE SOUTH HEMISPHERE (PINK). THE
ERROR BARS REPRESENT THE STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR EACH MONTH. ............. .............. ............ 57
FIGURE 3.7HISTOGRAMS OF THE RANGE OF (A) SALINITY AND (B) SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE VALUES
FOR THE DATA USED IN THIS WORK. ................................................................................................. 58
FIGURE 3.8VARIATION OF THE NUMBER OF RAOB PROFILES USED DEPENDING ON THE LIMITS IN SPACE
AND TIME SEPARATION IMPOSED ON THE DATA. ............................................................................... 60
FIGURE 3.9VARIATION OF THE RMS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DATA AND MODEL DEPENDING ON THE
LIMITS IN SPACE AND TIME SEPARATION IMPOSED ON THE DATA. .................................................... 61
FIGURE 3.10.PLOT OF THE MODEL ERROR(TBTMR-TBMODEL) VERSUS THE SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE
FORE96. THE R2
VALUE OF THE LINEAR FIT IS SHOWN TO BE SMALL, DENOTING A SMALL
DEPENDENCE OF THE ERROR IN THIS MODEL ON THE SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE.. ..................... ... 63
FIGURE 3.11THE MODIFIED AND NOMINAL OCEAN DIELECTRIC PERMITTIVITY MODELS,MODKS AND
KS77(IN PINK) AND MODE AND E96(IN BLUE). THE PLOTS SHOW THE VARIATION IN BOTH THE
REAL AND IMAGINARY PARTS OF THE PERMITTIVITY VERSUS FREQUENCY. THE ERROR BARS
DENOTE THE STANDARD DEVIATIONS IN THE MODIFIED MODELS. ALL PLOTS ARE FORTSEA=280K
AND S=35. ................................................................................................................................... 71
FIGURE 3.12ERROR IN THE MODIFIED OCEAN EMISSIVITY,MOD KS(IN PINK) AND MODE(IN BLUE)
VERSUS FREQUENCY. THE ERROR BARS DENOTE THE STANDARD DEVIATIONS AT EACH POINT. PLOTIS FORTSEA=280KAND S=35. ........................................................................................................ 72
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
8/111
S. Cruz-Pol ix
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE2.1NEW RETRIEVED ATMOSPHERIC ABSORPTION PARAMETERS ............................................... 31
TABLE2.2 STANDARD DEVIATIONS AND CORRELATION MATRIX FOR THE FOUR ESTIMATED
PARAMETERS TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ERRORS IN THE RAOB PROFILES ANDWVR
BRIGHTNESS
TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS. ...................................................................................................... 35
TABLE2.3 UNCERTAINTIES INTRODUCED TO THE CALCULATED BRIGHTNESS TEMPERATURES BY THE
L87R93(NOMINAL)[JOHANSSONET AL.,1987;ENGLAND ET AL.,1993] AND BY THE NEW
ATMOSPHERIC ATTENUATION MODEL. .............................................................................................. 38
TABLE3.1 COORDINATES OF THE RAOB STATIONS DEPICTED IN THE MAP ON FIGURE 3.3. .................. 53
TABLE3.2COMPARISON OF OVERALL PERFORMANCE OF SEVERAL OCEAN EMISSIVITY MODELS WITH
RESPECT TO TMRDATA. .................................................................................................................. 64
TABLE3.3COMPARISON OF THE OVERALL PERFORMANCE OF K77 AND E96 OCEAN EMISSIVITY
MODELS WITH TWO MODIFIED PARAMETER. ..................................................................................... 66
TABLE 3.4.COMPARISON AMONG OCEAN EMISSIVITY MODELS. ............................................................ 67
TABLE 4.1.ERRORBUDGET FOR THE PATH DELAY ALGORITHM ............................................................ 75
TABLE 4.2.TOTAL ERRORBUDGET FORTOPEXMICROWAVE RADIOMETER(TMR)WET TROPOSPHERE
RANGE CORRECTION.[KEIHMET AL,1995] ..................................................................................... 76
TABLE 4.3.RMSERRORS OF INDIVIDUAL SEA SURFACE TOPOGRAPHY ERROR(UNITS IN CENTIMETERS
[TSAOUSSIANDKOBLINSKY,1994;FUET AL.,1994] ......................................................................... 77
TABLEA-1. OXYGEN MICROWAVE SPECTRUM PARAMETERS [ROSENKRANZ,1993] ............................ 88
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
9/111
S. Cruz-Pol x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I want to thank God, for without Him there would be nothing. And thanks to my
parents for raising me with love and for teaching me about Reincarnation and Allan Kardec. I admire
you Papi for being so humble and for always being ready with a joke. I admire you Mami for your
immense faith and noble example. The knowledge that our suffering and obstacles in life are a direct
consequence of our acts in this or past lives, strengthens my Christian faith. Without that knowledge,
so many questions about our purpose in life and what seems to be injustice sometimes would remain
unanswered. I know I had to go through many situations good and bad, but in each I learned
something. I know I had to be in this time and place, and thanks to that, I met a great human being, a
great friend, Justin Bobak.
Thanks JPB for answering all the hundred questions I always had, for being yourself, and for
your friendship, good humor and afternoon coffee. I would also like to thanks all my other lab partners
for making our working environment a fun place to come to every morning; to Hans Rosenberger for
coffee every morning and for his good nature; and to Jude Giampaolo for being so nice and for the
innumerable answers to my PC-networking, NT-registry, etc. questions. Thanks to Rafael Rodrguez
Sols, because approximately 77.14% of what I know about computers, I learned from him.
I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Chris Ruf, for his valuable intellectual guidance through
these last three and a half years of research. Thanks also go to all the members of my committee; Dr.
Kultegin Aydin, Dr. Toby Carlson, Dr. Lynn Carpenter, Dr. Charles Croskey, Dr. Jenni Evans and Dr.
Charles Kilgus for their suggestions and revisions to the final document. Thanks are due to Prof.
Kwang Y. Lee for his well-meant advice and teaching, and to the sponsors behind the Fellowships
from GEE and GEM, and the University of Puerto Rico.
I will like to thank my daughters, Natal and Adriana, or as I like to call them my two most
challenging and rewarding projects, for giving me inspiration and bringing me joy as I watch them
bloom every day in front of me. I dont know who have learned more, you from me, or me from you.
To my dear and wise mother-in-law, Vilma, for coming from Puerto Rico for a month, so we could
work 12-15 hours a day, 6.3 days a week to finish this work in time, and for being a friend and
providing advice every time I asked for some.
And finally, I would like to thank my best friend, Jos Colom Ustriz, for being there all the
time for me, for sincerely enjoying and sharing every one of my accomplishments. You are a great
man, husband and father and I love you.
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
10/111
S. Cruz-Pol xi
The vanity of some men, who imagine that they know everything, and are bent on
explaining everything in their own way, will give rise to opposing opinions; but all who have
in view the grand principle of Jesus will be united in the same love of goodness, and in abond of brotherhood that will embrace the entire world. Putting aside all vain disputes about
words, they will devote their energies to matters of practical importance, in regard to which,
whatever their doctrinal belief, the convictions of all who receive the communications of thehigher spirits will be the same.
"Perseverance will render your labour fruitful. The pleasure you will feel in witnessing thespread of our doctrine and its right appreciation will be for you a rich reward, though perhaps
rather in the future than in the present. Be not troubled by the thorns and stones that the
incredulous and the evil-minded will place in your path; hold fast your confidence, for yourconfidence will ensure our help, and, through it, you will reach the goal.
"Remember that good spirits only give their aid to those who serve God with humility and
disinterestedness; they disown all who use heavenly things as a stepping-stone to earthly
advancement, and withdraw from the proud and the ambitious. Pride and ambition are abarrier between man and God; for they blind man to the splendours of celestial existence,
and God cannot employ the blind to make known the light."
"JOHN THE EVANGELIST, ST AUGUSTINE, ST VICENT DE PAUL, ST LOUIS, THE SPIRIT OFTRUTH, SOCRATES, PLATO, FENELON, FRANKLIN, SWEDENBORG, etc., etc."
from Spirits' Book by Allan Kardec,
1857 (translated from French),
[www.GEAE.org]
Mi patria es el mundo, sin fronteras, SLCP
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
11/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 1 Theoretical Background
1
INTRODUCTION
Knowledge of the state of the ocean plays a vital role in weather and ocean wave forecasting
models [Wilheit, 1979a] as well as in ocean-circulation models [Dobson et al., 1987]. One approach to
measuring the state of the ocean is by remote sensing of the oceans surface emission. Microwave
radiometers on satellites can completely cover the earths oceans. Satellite radiometry offers numerous
advantages over ship and buoy data. Some of these advantages include the vast coverage of global
seas, including locations where radiosonde or buoys cannot be afforded, relatively low power
consumption, no maintenance and continuous operation under a wide range of weather conditions.
Measurements of the microwave brightness seen from the sea are used in the retrieval of
physical parameters such as wind speed, cloud liquid water and path delay. A suitable model for these
measurements includes contributions from atmospheric emission, mainly water vapor and oxygen, and
from ocean emission.
Seasat was the first satellite designed for remote sensing of the Earth's oceans. It was
launched in 1978 by the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA). The mission was
designed to demonstrate the feasibility of global satellite monitoring of oceanographic phenomena and
to help determine the requirements for an operational ocean remote sensing satellite system. It
included the Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) which measured vertical and
horizontal linearly polarized brightness temperatures at 6.6, 10.7, 18, 21 and 37 GHz. The SMMR was
used to retrieve surface wind speed, ocean surface temperature, atmospheric water vapor content, rain
rate, and ice coverage. Unfortunately, the mission only lasted approximately 100 days due to a failure
of the vehicle's electric power system [Njoku et al.,1980].
The Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) launched the first Special Sensor
Microwave Imager (SSM/I) in 1987 on a near polar orbiting, sun synchronous weather satellite. It was
the first of a series of several identical sensors launched to provide world-wide meteorological,
oceanographic and solar-terrestrial physics measurements on a twice-daily basis [ Petty and Katsaros,
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
12/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 1 Theoretical Background
2
1992]. The SSM/I is a seven-channel, four frequency, linearly-polarized, passive microwave
radiometric system which operates at 19.35, 22.235, 37.0 and 85.5 GHz. It is used to measure ice
coverage, precipitation areas and intensities, cloud water content, and ocean surface wind speeds
[Hollingeret al., 1990].
In 1991 the European Space Agency launched The ERS-1 satellite. The primary mission of
ERS-1 was to perform remote sensing of the Earth's oceans, ice caps, and coastal regions by providing
global measurements of wind speed and direction, wave height, surface temperatures, surface altitude,
cloud cover, and atmospheric water vapor levels. The mission included a nadir viewing radiometer
operating at 23.8 and 36.5 GHz and co-aligned with the altimeter to provide range corrections with 2
cm accuracy [Gntheret al., 1993].
In 1992 the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite was launched as a joint venture between NASA and
Centre National d'Etudes Spatiale (CNES) to provide high-accuracy global sea level measurements.
Data from TOPEX/Poseidon is used to map ocean circulation patterns, help understand how the oceans
interact with the atmosphere, and improve our ability to predict the global climate [Stewart, 1986]. It
includes a three channel nadir viewing microwave radiometer (TMR) at 18, 21 and 37 GHz designed
to measure the water vapor along the path viewed by the altimeter to correct the altimeter data for
pulse delay due to water vapor. It has a claimed accuracy of 1.2 cm [Keihm et al., 1995].
In 1998 the US Navy launched the GEOSAT Follow On (GFO), designed to provide real-time
ocean topography data. It includes a radar altimeter with 3.5 cm height measurement precision. In
addition, a dual frequency (22 and 37 GHz) water vapor radiometer is included to provide path delay
correction with an accuracy of 1.9 cm [Rufet al., 1996].
The need to improve the calibration of existing models for atmospheric and ocean emission is
motivated by several current and upcoming satellite remote sensing missions. In the case of TMR, an
improved atmospheric model would enhance the inversion algorithm used to retrieve path delay
information. Another case is the JASON satellite, a joint NASA/CNES radiometer and altimeter
scheduled to be launched in 2000 [JPL, 1998]. For JASON, absolute calibration is performed by
occasionally looking at calm water. This type of calibration reduces the cost in hardware, complexity,
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
13/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 1 Theoretical Background
3
size and power. However, the quality of the calibration depends strongly on the accuracy of a model
for the calm water emission. In contrast, for the TMR an absolute calibration is performed using hot
and cold references carried by the satellite [Rufet al., 1995].
Errors in the modeling of microwave brightness temperature, TB, seen from orbit over the sea
include errors in the models for vapor and oxygen absorption and sea surface emissivity. Conversely,
errors in the measurement of the microwave TB include errors in the antenna temperature calibration,
and beam pattern correction. Currently, the dominant error source when modeling the ocean
brightness temperature is the vapor absorption model. In the case of the TOPEX/POSEIDON
microwave radiometer, this uncertainty is approximately 35% higher than the radiometers TB
measurement error [Keihm et al., 1995]. Precise microwave radiometry equipment such as this
demands more accurate models for the retrieval of the oceans parameters. The accuracy of these
models must be consistent with the level of the errors introduced by the microwave sensor, otherwise
the model uncertainties dominate the error budget. The improvement and revision of two models
needed to achieve a higher accuracy in the ocean TB modeling are addressed in this work. The first
model accounts for atmospheric absorption. The second accounts for the sea surface emissivity.
In this document, a section is devoted to each of these models. In Part I, the development of
an improved microwave atmospheric absorption model is presented. Part II is dedicated to ocean
microwave emission. In both cases, a model is developed and iteratively adjusted to fit a carefully
calibrated set of measurements.
For the atmospheric absorption model, ground-based radiometric experiments were conducted
at two locations of contrasting humidity conditions; San Diego, CA and West Palm Beach, FL. In
addition, radiosonde profile data at each site were collected for comparison purposes in the retrieval of
the atmospheric model parameters. Advantages over previous such experiments include the use of
three independent radiometers for absolute calibration verification, sampling at eight distinct
frequencies across the 22 GHz absorption line, and filtering of the raob data to minimize the effects of
errors in the relative humidity readings.
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
14/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 1 Theoretical Background
4
Uncertainties in the improved model for atmospheric emission are significantly improved
over previous published models. The line-strength and width parameters' uncertainties are reduced to
1% and 1.6%, respectively. The overall uncertainty in the new absorption model is conservatively
estimated to be 3% in the vicinity of 22GHz and approaching 8% at 32 GHz. The RMS difference
between modeled and measured thermal emission by the atmosphere, in terms of the brightness
temperature, is reduced by 23%, from 1.36 K to 1.05 K, compared to one of the most currently used
atmospheric models.
For the ocean emission study, satellite-based radiometric measurements from the
TOPEX/Poseidon project are employed. In addition, altimeter (active remote sensor) data from the
same satellite is utilized for the purpose of wind speed estimation and specular emissivity
corroboration. We investigate the contribution from the specular ocean emission by employing the
altimeter to pinpoint the exact times when the wind is calm, in order to relax the dependence of the
correction to the specular model on the accuracy of the wind model.
The modified ocean dielectric models exhibit significant improvements in the estimate ofTB.
Of the two, the modified Ellison et al.[1977] model exhibits superior overall performance, including
the lowest bias at both frequencies, which is a very important attribute indicative of the accuracy of the
model. Its frequency dependence was decreased to 0.30K, which will allow for more reliable
extrapolation to higher frequencies. In addition, this modified model has the lowest dependence on sea
surface temperature and the lowest RMS difference for both 18GHz and 37GHz. Consequently, this is
the model that we recommend for future remote sensing applications involving microwave emissions
from the ocean emissivity of the ocean. The average error in the modified emissivity model, over the
range 18-40 GHz, is found to be 0.37%, which in terms of brightness temperatures, translates into a
model error of approximately 1K.
We first develop the necessary background theory in Chapter 1. Chapter 2 deals with the
model theory, experiments and data analysis related to the atmospheric absorption model. The third
chapter presents the model theory, data, statement of the problem, and analysis for the ocean emission
model. Conclusions are presented in Chapter 4.
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
15/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 1 Theoretical Background
5
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
16/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 1 Theoretical Background
1
1. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
1-1 Radiative Transfer Equations
The atmosphere receives most of its energy by means of solar electromagnetic radiation.
Some of this energy is absorbed by the atmosphere and some reaches the surface of the Earth where it
can also be absorbed or it can be reflected. Energy absorption implies a rise in thermal energy and,
therefore, temperature of the object. Any object with a temperature above absolute zero emits
electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic emission implies a decrease in the objects temperature.
These processes, i.e. absorption and emission, altogether help create a balance between the energy
absorbed by the Earth and its atmosphere and the energy emitted by them. The study of these energy
transformation processes is called radiative transfer.
The Planck function for spectral brightness describes the radiation spectrum of a blackbody at
thermal equilibrium. It is given by
(1.1)
where h is Plancks constant (6.63 x 10-34 J),fis frequency in Hz, kis Boltzmanns constant (1.38 x 10-
23 J/K), Tis absolute temperature in K, and c is the velocity of light (3 x 10 8 m/s) [Planck, 1914].
At the low-frequency limit, i.e. hf
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
17/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 1 Theoretical Background
2
smaller than 300 GHz. For frequencies less than 117GHz and blackbody at 300 K, the Rayleigh-Jeans
approximation yields values less than 1% different from the Plancks expression. At microwave
frequencies, therefore, the power received by an antenna due to blackbody radiation is directly
proportional to the temperature of the object.
Radiometers are used to detect the electromagnetic radiation naturally emitted by the
atmosphere, oceans, terrain, celestial bodies, etc. These devices remotely sense the microwave noise
power in terms of the apparent temperature seen by the antenna. The apparent temperature is defined
as the equivalent blackbody temperature at which a matched resistor would have to be in order to
deliver the same amount of power at the antenna terminals (see Fig 1.1) [Chandrasekhar, 1960].
Figure 1.1 The power received by an antenna is equivalent to the noise power delivered by a matchedresistor. If the blackbody enclosure is at temperature T, the brightness temperature, TB, measured bythe antenna is defined as being equal to T. [Chandrasekhar, 1960]
The amount of radiation received by a radiometer depends on its viewing configuration. A
ground-based radiometer operates in an upward-looking position. Therefore, it measures the radiation
coming down from our atmosphere (see Fig. 1.2). A satellite-based radiometer, on the other hand,
looks down toward the surface of the Earth. It receives contributions from the upwelling atmospheric
radiation, the surface emission, and the radiation reflected at the air-surface interface (see Fig. 1.4).
Radiometer
Receiver
P
Antenna
Radiometer
Receiver
P
R
Blackbod enclosure
T
T
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
18/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 1 Theoretical Background
3
Figure 1.2. Passive remote sensing withupward-looking radiometer .
1-1.1 Ground-Based Radiometer
Consider a non-scattering atmosphere in which the temperature and the absorption coefficient
are functions of altitude. The brightness temperature of the atmosphere, observed from the ground,
also known as downwelling temperature, is obtained by integrating the contributions of individual
layers of the atmosphere. The emission from each layer is attenuated by a factore-by the intervening
medium as it travels down towards the point of measurement. The downwelling temperature is the
sum of these contributions and it is given by [Ulaby et al., 1981]
(1.3)
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
19/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 1 Theoretical Background
4
where is the incidence angle of the radiation which is measured with respect to the normal to the
surface, (f, z) is the atmospheric attenuation in Nepers/km at frequencyfand heightz, is the opacity
of the atmosphere between altitude 0 and z , and T(z) is the air temperature at height z. The opacity
measures the total amount of extinction suffered through the path and is given by
(1.4)
When the radiometer is looking directly up, the incidence angle is = 0o and sec reduces to unity.
This simplifies (1.3) to the form used in this work,
(1.5)
To compute the apparent temperature measured by the antenna, Ta, the contributions from the
cosmos and galaxy have to be added
(1.6)
In the above equation, TCis the cosmic background radiation incident on the atmosphere from the top.
As it travels down toward the antenna, it is reduced by a factor of e- due to absorption by the
intervening atmosphere. This factor is known as the transmissivity or transmittance function. The
cosmic radiation at microwave frequencies varies with frequency as
(1.7)
which has an average of 2.78 K for the 20-32 GHz range. The frequency dependence accounts for
departures from the Rayleigh-Jeans approximation [Janssen, 1993]. The physical behavior of equation
(1.3) depends on the atmospheric conditions. Examining (1.3) and (1.4), it is noted that Ta depends on
the vertical profiles of temperature and absorption. For a lossless atmosphere, (f, z)=0, and therefore
TDN = 0. At the other extreme, for a perfect blackbody, (f, z)=1, and the TDN is reduced to the
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
20/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 1 Theoretical Background
5
physical temperature of the atmosphere. For a non-uniform temperature profile, Ta will never exceed
the physical temperature. Figure 1.3 shows plots ofTa for different atmospheric conditions.
Figure 1.3. Downwelling brightness temperature as observed by an upward looking radiometer forU.S. Standard and dry atmospheric conditions and for the hypothetical case absolutely no water inthe atmosphere. The contribution around 22.235 GHz are mainly due to the resonant water-vaporemission.
1-1.2 Satellite-Based Radiometer
Again consider a non-scattering atmosphere. The apparent temperature received by an
antenna from above the atmosphere has three components. The radiometer measures the radiation
coming up from the atmosphere, also known as the upwelling temperature, the radiation emitted by the
surface beneath and the radiation reflected at the air-surface interface (Fig. 1.4). This last component
consists of the downwelling atmospheric emission plus the cosmic background radiation. The total
apparent temperature is given by
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
21/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 1 Theoretical Background
6
Figure 1.4. Passive remote sensing with downward-looking radiometer.
(1.8)
where Ts is the thermodynamic temperature of the surface in Kelvin, is the emissivity of the surface,
is the reflectivity of the surface,His the satellite height in km, TC is the cosmic radiation and
TDN is given by (1.3). The upwelling brightness temperature in the zenith direction is given by,
(1.9)
The absorption coefficient,(f, z), includes both the spectral (water vapor and oxygen) line absorption
and any other source of microwave opacity present in the atmosphere as clouds, fog and rain.
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
22/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 1 Theoretical Background
7
Equation (1.8) contains all the quantities needed to compute the response of a satellite-based
microwave radiometer to changes in atmospheric and surface variables. The upwelling and
downwelling temperature terms depend on the atmospheric absorption weighted by the temperature
profile of the atmosphere. The background term, TC, is multiplied by the transmittance function, to
account for the attenuation along the vertical path between the satellite and the surface. It is then
added to TDN and reflected back toward the satellite. Hence, it is attenuated by the intervening
atmosphere, according to the transmittance function, and multiplied by the reflectivity parameter,
. The surface emission consists of the physical temperature of the surface multiplied by the
surface emissivity.
The emissivity is a function of the dielectric properties of the surface. In the case of the
ocean, it varies with frequency, temperature, wind speed and, to a lesser extent, on salinity. The
variation of emissivity with frequency, temperature, and salinity is shown in Figures 1.5(a)-(c) as
described by the most recent ocean emissivity model [Ellison et al., 1996]. Variation with wind speed
is shown in Figure 1.5(d) as described by Wilheit [1979b]. Note how the dependence on sea surface
temperature and frequency are much larger than that on salinity and wind speed. In general, the
emissivity increases with increasing frequency and decreasing temperature. The frequency, salinity
and temperature dependence will be examined further in Chapter 3.
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
23/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 1 Theoretical Background
8
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
24/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 1 Theoretical Background
9
Figure 1.5 Effects on the sea surface emissivity due to (a) frequency, (b) sea surface temperature, (c)salinity and (d) wind speed. (Unless otherwise noted, the plots are given forf= 37 GHz, S= 35 and TS=280 K.)
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
25/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 1 Theoretical Background
10
1-1.2.1 Radio path delay
Radio path delay is the path distortion that a radio signal undergoes when traversing the
atmosphere of the Earth. This refraction introduces uncertainties in the time of arrival of the signal due
to bending and retardation along the propagation path. The physical phenomena behind the delays are
the dispersion due to the free electrons of the ionosphere, the induced dipole moments of neutral
atmospheric molecules (principally nitrogen and oxygen), and the permanent dipole moments of water-
vapor and cloud liquid water molecules. The dry component of the delay due to the neutral
atmosphere contributes about 2.3 m in zenith direction at sea level. The wet component of the delay
caused by water vapor and cloud liquid water is smaller, but much more variable. It can range from
less than 1 cm to 40 cm or more in the zenith direction. When we mention path delay in the remainder
of this work, we refer to the variable wet component.
The wet delay can be inferred from microwave radiometer measurements. The electrical path
lengthL of a signal propagating along Sis defined as
(1.10)
where n is the refractive index of the atmosphere, and S is the path along which the signal propagates.
The signal will propagate along the path that gives the minimum value ofL. S is larger than the
geometrical straight line distance, defined as G. However, the electrical path length of the signal
propagating along G is longer than that for the signal propagating along S. The difference between the
electrical path length and the geometrical straight-line distance is called the excess propagation path
or path delay, defined as
(1.11)
In the case of a horizontally stratified atmosphere, the two paths Sand G are identical in the zenith
direction. In this case, the path delay is
(1.12)
The index of refraction, n, is conveniently expressed in terms of the refractivity,N, defined as
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
26/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 1 Theoretical Background
11
(1.13)
The refractivity is expressed as the sum of a dry and wet (vapor and cloud induced) components. The
wet refractivity component due to vapor is given by [Bourdouris, 1963;Hills et al., 1982]
(1.14)
from which the vapor induced path delay component in centimeters can be found as
(1.15)
where v is the water vapor density in g/m3, Tis the atmosphere air temperature profile in K and zis
height in meters.
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
27/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 1 Theoretical Background
12
2. Microwave Atmospheric Absorption Model
An improved model for the absorption of the atmosphere near the 22 GHz water vapor line
is presented. The Van-Vleck-Weisskopf line shape is used with a simple parameterized
version of the model from Liebe for the water vapor absorption spectra and a scaling of the
model from Rosenkranz for the 20-32 GHz oxygen absorption. Radiometric brightness
temperature measurements from two sites of contrasting climatological properties San
Diego, CA and West Palm Beach, FL were used as ground truth for comparison with in
situ radiosonde derived brightness temperatures. The retrieval of the new models four
parameters, related to water vapor line strength, line width and continuum absorption,
and far-wing oxygen absorption, was performed using the Newton-Raphson inversion
method. In addition, the Hill line shape asymmetry ratio was evaluated on several
currently used models to show the agreement of the data with the new model, and rule out
atmospheric vapor absorption models near 22 GHz given by Waters and Ulaby, Moore and
Fung which are based on the Gross line shape. Results show a 23% improvement in the
difference between modeled and measured brightness temperature from the atmosphere
compared to current models.
Absorption and emission by atmospheric gases can significantly attenuate and delay the
propagation of electromagnetic signals through the Earths atmosphere. Improved modeling of the
emission spectra for the dominant contributing gases, mainly water vapor and oxygen, is needed for
many applications in communications, remote sensing, and radioastronomy. More precise models of
atmospheric absorption can improve corrections for atmospheric effects on satellite observations ofland and ocean surfaces [McMillin, 1980], produce more accurate remote measurements of
atmospheric water vapor burden and temperature profiles [Grody, 1980], refine predictions of global
climate changes [NASA, 1993], enhance planetary radio science measurements [Pooley, 1976],
improve the accuracy of continental plate motion estimation [Shapiro et al., 1974], and expedite the
resolution of accumulated strain at fault zones [Shapiro, 1976].
Estimated uncertainties for current models of the 20-32 GHz water vapor absorption range
over 4-10% [Keihm et al., 1995]. For applications such as water vapor radiometer (WVR)
measurements of integrated vapor and cloud liquid used in meteorological and climate modeling, 10%
accuracies are often adequate. However, for many applications, especially those requiring calibration
of microwave signal delays in the troposphere (path delay), the vapor absorption model uncertainty
often dominates experimental error budgets. Examples include the measurement of the vapor-induced
path delay over the worlds oceans by the TOPEX Microwave Radiometer [Keihm etal., 1995] and
GEOSAT Follow-on Water Vapor Radiometer [Ruf et al., 1996], VLBI geodetic measurements
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
28/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 2 Microwave Atmospheric Water Vapor Absorption Model
13
[Linfield et al., 1996], and the tropospheric calibration effort planned for the Cassini Gravitational
Wave Experiment [Keihm and March, 1996].
Current models for atmospheric microwave absorption have been developed from both
laboratory and field experiments. Multimode cavity measurements by Becker and Autler[1946]
lacked diagnostics necessary to control systematic errors down to a desirable level; their estimated
error is between 5% and 10% [Walter, 1995]. The field measurements of water vapor absorption
calibration near the 22 GHz resonance feature generally involve comparisons between direct
measurements at two or three selected frequencies by a water vapor radiometer and theoretical
brightness temperatures calculated from radiosonde (raob) profiles of temperature, pressure and
humidity. raob comparison measurements [e.g. Westwater, 1978;Hogget al., 1980; Snider, 1995] are
well known to be subject to inaccurate humidity readings for extreme (very dry or very humid)
conditions [Wade, 1994; Nash et al., 1995]. Current oxygen model uncertainties range from 1.5% to
8% for the resonant oxygen lines cluster near 58 GHz [ Liebe et al. 1993], yet these fractional
uncertainties increase significantly for frequencies down in the 20-32 GHz range.
In this work, radiometric measurements of brightness temperature, TB, are used in conjunction
with in situ raob measurements to estimate parameters for a simplified model of the 20-32 GHz
atmospheric vapor and oxygen absorption. The experiment covered ~70 days of near-continuous
WVR measurements and twice per day raob launches at the San Diego and West Palm Beach National
Weather Service stations. Advantages over previous such experiments include the use of three
independent radiometers for absolute calibration verification, sampling at eight distinct frequencies
across the 22 GHz absorption line, and filtering of the raob data to minimize the effects of high and
low end errors in the relative humidity measurements. The spectrum of atmospheric absorption versus
frequency is shown for dry and typical conditions on Fig. 2.1
2-1 Atmospheric Absorption
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
29/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 2 Microwave Atmospheric Water Vapor Absorption Model
14
For a non-scattering atmosphere (rain-free conditions) the main contributors to atmospheric
radiation at microwave frequencies are the emission by water vapor and oxygen molecules. The
movement of molecules, through vibration, rotation and electronic spinning, determines the nature of
the radiation that they emit or absorb. Uncoupled electron charges or electron spins are responsible for
electric and magnetic dipoles, respectively, within the molecules.
Figure 2.1 Water vapor absorption versus frequency for at a pressure of 1013 mbars1, air temperatureof 290 K for no water vapor in the atmosphere and for when there is water vapor (2g/cm3). [Ulabyet al., 1980]
Water vapor and oxygen molecules both radiate due to molecular rotation. In the case of the
water vapor molecule, this rotation causes its permanent electric dipole to radiate. Oxygen has no
permanent electric dipole moment, but its magnetic dipole allows it to emit. The magnetic dipole
emission is much weaker than that of a molecular electric dipole, but the great abundance of oxygen in
the atmosphere compensates for the intrinsic weakness of its absorption.
1In this work pressure is expressed in mbars which is equal to 1 hPascal.
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
30/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 2 Microwave Atmospheric Water Vapor Absorption Model
15
2-1.1 Line Shapes
We are concerned with the absorption line spectra of the water vapor and oxygen molecules,
since they are the major contributors to atmospheric absorption. Their absorption spectra have been
most commonly described by the Van-Vleck Weisskopf (VVW) and the Gross line shapes. Both line
shapes are derived from a molecular oscillator analogy. In this analogy, the molecule is treated as a
classical oscillator with a fixed rotational frequency equal in value to the frequency of the resonant
line. Collisions between molecules cause reorientation and rotational phase shifts of the molecule,
which contribute to the broadening and shifting of the electromagnetic spectral lines. The basic
difference between the two line shape theories is that VVW assumes the oscillations are in phase with
the electric field after the collisions, whereas Gross assumes that the molecular oscillation phases stay
undisturbed and the post-collision momenta are randomized [Ben-Reuven, 1969]. The general form for
the Van-Vleck Weisskopt[1945] is given by
(2.1)
and the Gross Line shape is given by [Gross, 1955]
(2.2)
wherefis the measurement frequency, f0 is the center resonant frequency for the given molecule, Sis
the line strength and is the linewidth parameter. The line shape used in the atmospheric absorption
model employed in this work is the VVW and is discussed with further detail in section 2-2.1.
2-2 Current Models and their limitations
Currently used models for atmospheric absorption include those by Liebe and Layton [1987],
Liebe et al. [1993], Waters [1976] and Ulaby et al. [1981]. These will be referred to as L87, L93, W76
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
31/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 2 Microwave Atmospheric Water Vapor Absorption Model
16
and UMF81, respectively, in the remainder of this thesis. Figure 2.2 shows a plot of the water vapor
absorption spectrum for each of these models under typical mid-latitude surface conditions. Note that
significant differences are evident in both magnitude and shape of the spectra. Some of the reasons for
these differences are discussed below.
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.035
0.040
0.045
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
Frequency [GHz]
WaterVaporAbsorptionvapor[Np/km]
Figure 2.2 Water vapor absorption versus frequency for several models at a pressure of 1013 mbars,air temperature of 290 K and relative humidity of 50%. (L87 = Liebe 87, L93 = Liebe 93, W76 =Waters 76 and UMF81= Ulaby, Moore and Fung 81).
Each model includes an empirical continuum term to account for the discrepancy between
theoretical and experimental absorption spectra in the window region. The physical phenomena
behind the excess absorption in the continuum might be due to inaccuracies in the far wing line shape
of vapor resonances [Gebbie, 1980], the exclusion of the effects of water clusters [Bohlander, 1979]
and/or forbidden transitions between energy levels on these line functions [Rosenkranz, 1990].
UMF81
W76
L93
L87
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
32/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 2 Microwave Atmospheric Water Vapor Absorption Model
17
Although this excess has yet to be understood, empirical modifications are needed to obtain more
accurate agreement between measurements and theory.
Uncertainties in attenuation for the L87 water vapor model over tropospheric pressures are
estimated to be from 2.3 % to 21.2% [Liebe and Layton, 1987]. For the oxygen model used in L87R93
and L93, the uncertainties range from 1.5% to 8% at the nominal center frequency of 58 GHz, also for
tropospheric pressures [Liebe et al., 1993]. For frequencies farther from the center, the fractional
uncertainty increases significantly.
2-2.1 Atmospheric Absorption Line Shapes
The L87 and L93 models employ the Van Vleck-Weisskopf (VVW) line shape whereas the
W76 model uses the Gross line shape. The UMF81 uses the Gross line shape for the water vapor and
VVW for the oxygen absorption. Both line shapes are derived from a molecular oscillator analogy. In
this analogy, the molecule is treated as a classical oscillator with a fixed rotational frequency equal in
value to the frequency of the resonant line. Collisions between molecules cause reorientation and
rotational phase shifts of the molecule, which contribute to the broadening and shifting of the
electromagnetic spectral lines. The basic difference between the two line shape theories is that VVW
assumes the oscillations are in phase with the electric field after the collisions, whereas Gross [1955] -
assumes that the molecular oscillation phases stay undisturbed and the post-collision momenta are
randomized [Ben-Reuven, 1969].
2-2.1.1 The L87R93 Atmospheric Absorption Model
The baseline model which is refined in this work uses a simplified version of the L87 model
for water vapor absorption, in which we have combined the effects of other individual water vapor
absorption lines, above the 22.235 GHz line, into the continuum term for computational expediency.
We have incorporated the simplified L87 model for water vapor absorption together with the improved
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
33/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 2 Microwave Atmospheric Water Vapor Absorption Model
18
oxygen absorption model byRosenkranz[1993]. This model is referred to as L87R93. Refinements to
the water vapor absorption model are accomplished by the addition of three adjustable parameters, CL,
CW, and CC, which account for scaling of the line strength, line width, and continuum term,
respectively. The oxygen absorption model is refined with the addition of an adjustable scaling factor
CX.
Equations for the L87R93 atmospheric absorption model, including all refinement parameters,
are presented below. The water vapor absorption model is given by
(2.3)
where TL, TS, and TCrefer to the line strength, line shape and continuum terms and are given by
, (2.4)
, (2.5)
and,
(2.6)
wherefis frequency in GHz,fzis the water vapor resonant frequency = 22.235 GHz, = 300/T, Tis air
temperature in Kelvin,Pis air pressure,PH2O is water vapor partial pressure and Pdry = P -PH2O . The
first term in equation (2.6) is due to collisions of the water vapor molecule with foreign molecules like
oxygen or nitrogen, while the second term relates to the collision among water molecules. The width
parameter, , is defined as
. (2.7)
Equations (2.3)-(2.7) introduce the following parameters: water vapor line strength CL, line width CW,
and continuum CC.
The oxygen absorption model is given by
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
34/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 2 Microwave Atmospheric Water Vapor Absorption Model
19
(2.8)
where , S(T) is the line strength
(2.9)
and S(To) and fn are listed in Table A-1 on Appendix A, fn is the nth
oxygen resonant frequency andLn
is proportional to the shape of the lines
. (2.10)
The pressure-broadened line half-width is,
(2.11)
The O2 resonant lines are very close to each other and troposphere pressures are high enough ( > 100
mbars) to cause the lines to broaden and overlap. This is called collisional broadening and is taken
into account through the interference parameter, Yn, defined as
. (2.12)
where the coefficients y and v are listed in Table A-1. For the non-resonant spectrum (n=0), the
summation is given by
(2.13)
where
(2.14)
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
35/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 2 Microwave Atmospheric Water Vapor Absorption Model
20
and where w is also listed in Table A-1 on Appendix A for the n resonant lines. In equations (2.8)-
(2.14),fis frequency in GHz, = 300/T, Tis air temperature in Kelvin, w is water vapor density in g/
m3,Pis air pressure,PH2O is water vapor partial pressure given by e = T/217 andPdry = P-PH2O .
A selection ofCL =1.0, CW=1.0, CC =1.2 and CX=1.0 yields values within 0.5% of the exact
L87 water vapor absorption andRosenkranz[1993] oxygen absorption models over 20-32 GHz. (Note
that the value of the parameterCC has been increased from 1.0 to 1.2 to account for the wings of the
higher water vapor absorption lines.) We refer to these as the nominal values of the C parameters. We
note here that the L93 model in the range 20-32 GHz can be reproduced from L87R93 by using the
parameters CL =1.05, CW =1.0, CC=1.25 and CX=1.0. Liebes increase by 5% in the strength of the
water vapor absorption parameter, CL, from L87 to L93 was in large part due to earlier ground based
WVR inter-comparisons with radiosondes reported by Keihm [1991]. The line width parameter, CW,
was not adjusted in L93 because theKeihm [1991] data set did not include sufficient spectral resolution
of the line shape near 22 GHz. Our intent in this work is to reexamine the adjustment that was made to
L87 using an improved intercomparison database. It is for this reason that we begin with L87R93 as
our nominal model.
Figure 2.3a shows the change in absorption spectrum when each of the parameters is raised by
10% above the nominal L87R93 model. The line strength parameter, CL, increases the absorption
significantly, and this increase is accentuated for frequencies near resonance. The width parameter,
CW, increases the width of the curve but at the same time decreases the absorption near the center
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
36/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 2 Microwave Atmospheric Water Vapor Absorption Model
21
Figure 2.3 (a) Effect of line parameter variation by 10% on total atmospheric absorption. (b)Differential effect of line parameter variation with respect to nominal L87R93 model. The arrows atthe bottom of the figure indicate the frequencies measured in this experiment. (Same atmosphericconditions as Fig. 2.2).
CL 10%
CC 10%
CX 10%
L87R93
CW 10%
CL 10%
CC 10%
CX 10%
CW 10%
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
37/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 2 Microwave Atmospheric Water Vapor Absorption Model
22
(resonance) region. Both the continuum, CC, and the oxygen, CX, parameters, increase the absorption
through the 20-32 GHz frequency span, because of their dependence on the square of frequency.
These effects are also portrayed in Figure 2.3b, in which we have plotted the difference in absorption
with respect to the nominal L87R93 model.
2-3 Experiment Description and Calibration
2-3.1 Radiometer Data
The experiment consisted of the collection of data at two National Weather Service
radiosonde launch sites. These were chosen for their contrasting humidity conditions to provide
constraints on both the 22.235 GHz vapor emission line and the level of oxygen emission in the 20-32
GHz interval. The sites were at San Diego, CA from 11 December 1991 through 3 February 1992 and
West Palm Beach, FL from 8 through 21 March 1992. The overall range of humidity in terms of vapor
burden varied from 0.6 - 2.9 g/cm2. Only data obtained under cloud free conditions were used (90%
were from San Diego, CA and 10% from West Palm, FL).
The instruments used included three independently calibrated WVRs built by JPL, designated
J1, J2 and D2, which together provided measurements at 20.0, 20.3, 20.7, 21.5, 22.2, 22.8, 23.5, 24.0
and 31.4 GHz. The J1 unit operated in a continuous tip curve mode at preselected elevation angles
from 10o
to 165o
(where 90o
corresponds to the zenith direction) and at up to nine frequencies; 20.0,
20.3, 20.7, 21.5, 22.2, 22.8, 23.5, 24.0 and 31.4 GHz. The J2 WVR included 5 elevation angles and 3
frequencies at 20.7, 22.2, and 31.4 GHz. The D2 WVR operated at 20.7 and 31.4 GHz. The J2 and D2
units, which were located approximately 10 m from J1, were only used for the purpose of absolute-
calibration verification. The overall range of measured TB varied for each frequency as follows; from
16 to 30K at 20.0 GHz, from 12 to 33K at 20.3 GHz, from 19K to 38K at 20.7GHz, from 29K to 48K
at 21.5GHz, from 26 to 53K at 22.2GHz, from 20 to 35K at 22.8 GHz, from 18 to 50 K at 23.5 GHz,
from 23 to 46 K at 24GHz and from 16 to 26 at 31.4 GHz.
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
38/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 2 Microwave Atmospheric Water Vapor Absorption Model
23
A tip gain calibration [Elgered, 1993] was performed on all three WVR units. The zenith
brightness temperatures were obtained by combining the smoothed gains obtained from the tip curves
with antenna and reference counts from longer zenith integrations obtained between tip curves. Only
tip data for which the tip curve fit RMS residuals were less than 1.0 K were used for calibration.
Poorer quality tip results were deemed unreliable, in terms of absolute calibration, for the purposes of
this experiment and often indicated cloudy conditions. The processed high quality tip gains were
corrected for beam smearing effects using an opacity- and channel-dependent term derived using the J-
series beam pattern. Inter-comparison of TB data at frequencies common to J1 and J2 instruments
revealed absolute calibration accuracies of approximately 0.5 K or less as demonstrated in Figures
2.4(a)-(c). Only radiometer data from the J1 unit were actually used for comparison with raob-derived
TB s in the absorption model analysis.
The J1 radiometerTB data were averaged over one half hour for the times coinciding with the
radiosonde balloon launch. This was used as the ground truth for comparison purposes with the
radiosonde-derived TBs. The 22.8 GHz data was not used due to an unexplained bias in that channel.
The eight well-calibrated channels across the full line width of the 22.235 GHz feature constitute an
excellent radiometric data set for constraining the line shape model.
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
39/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 2 Microwave Atmospheric Water Vapor Absorption Model
24
Figure 2.4 Zenith Brightness temperature intercomparison between radiometer units J1 and J2 forabsolute calibration purposes. Measurements were conducted during December 1991 at San Diego,CA at (a) 20.7 GHz, (b) 22.2 GHz and (c) 31.4 GHz. The data have been smoothed by a 30 minutesrunning average.
20.7 GHz channel
31.4 GHz channel
22.2 GHz channel
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
40/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 2 Microwave Atmospheric Water Vapor Absorption Model
25
2-3.2 Radiosonde Data
Raob balloons at both sites were released approximately 15 m from the J1 WVR. Raob data
were obtained from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). These provide height profiles of
pressure, air temperature and dew point temperature. A reading was produced every few hundred
meters at irregular intervals of height up to approximately 16 km. Raob balloons were launched at
most twice a day. There were 130 profiles in our database. Of these, 23 corresponded to bad (invalid
frequency tuning) wvr data, and 31 did not coincide with the times wvr units were in operation. Of the
remaining 76 profiles, 36 had clouds present, leaving a total of 40 available raob profiles for this
analysis.
2-3.2.1 Radiosonde Processing
The measured air pressure and dew-temperature-derived-vapor profiles are exponentially
interpolated at regular intervals of height of 30 meters. The air temperature profile is linearly
interpolated for the same height intervals. The integration interval for the radiative transfer equation
was chosen to be every 30 meters of altitude for adequate precision in the resulting TB.
The relative humidity and water vapor content was derived from the temperature, dew point
and air pressure information using the Goff-Gratch formulation for saturation water vapor densityws
[Goff, 1949]. See Appendix B for a complete description of the formulation. Note that Goff-Gratch
includes a pressure dependence on saturation vapor density which has been largely neglected in the
past. The difference in TB when including the pressure dependence was found to be up to 1.4K for the
raob profiles considered here. This effect was largest for profiles with dry climate conditions.
2-3.2.2 Radiosonde Selection and Screening
Between 1973 and October 1993, the National Weather Service routinely truncated their
radiosonde humidity measurements at 20% RH, making the radiosonde hygristor appear to lose its
sensitivity below 20% RH [Wade, 1994]. Any humidity below 20% was recorded as 19%. The
relative humidities are still reported with a high bias. (See Wade [1994] for more details concerning
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
41/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 2 Microwave Atmospheric Water Vapor Absorption Model
26
NWS raob biases.). The data also suffered from the inability of the raob to properly report dew point
temperature for levels of relative humidity higher than 95%. To reduce these effects, a correction
factor was applied to relative humidity values outside the 20% - 95% range. The relative humidity was
set to 11% whenever it was less than 22% (this usually occurred at low altitudes) and to 20% (typical
high altitude value) whenever it was higher than 100%. The unphysical values ofRH greater than
100% generally arose at altitudes greater than 8 km, where the effects ofRHerrors are negligible for
the present analysis.
The selection of the radiosonde profiles to be used was based on the degree to which they
were affected by these RAOB humidity problems. Some profiles showed TB differences of up to
12.5K when the humidity correction factor was used. To study this effect, the four line parameters
were estimated with and without the correction. First, only one profile was use for the estimation, then
more profiles were added in order of less to greater change in TB due to the correction. In every case,
the change in each of the 4 parameters resulting from the correction was computed. This change was
then compared with the errors in the parameters due to 0.5K Gaussian noise on the WVR TBs. Both
effects are plotted in Fig. 2.5 versus the number of profiles used in the estimation, for the case of the
line width parameter, CW. The combined root sum square (RSS) error is also plotted. As seen in the
figure, the error due to the RHcorrection is of comparable magnitude to the error introduced by the
noise in the WVRTB when between 10 and 20 profiles are used. The highest number of profiles that
can be used without significantly increasing the RSS error in the estimated parameters is found to be
21 profiles. (Each profile is compared in the estimation with WVR data, with up to 8 frequency
channels, for a total of 108 data points). The error plots for the other three parameters look similar to
Fig. 2.5 except for the line strength parameter, CL. In the CL plot, the error starts increasing at 16
profiles, but at 21 profiles the RSS error is still only 0.04, so this number of profiles was chosen as a
compromise to accommodate the estimation of all 4 parameters simultaneously. This corresponded to
profiles with differences less than 4.5K between the TB calculated with the corrected and uncorrected
relative humidity values.
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
42/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 2 Microwave Atmospheric Water Vapor Absorption Model
27
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
No. of profiles used
NoiseinCWParameter
RH correction
0.5K TB noise
Total Noise
Figure 2.5 Total error in CW line parameter due to a 0.5 K uncertainty in measured TB and thecorrection of the raob relative humidity reading, versus number of raob profiles used in theestimation (see Section 3.2 for a complete discussion). A trade off between the amount of data usedand the minimum error in parameter estimation yields an optimum value of 21 raob profiles,providing a total of 108 data points.
Hoehne [1980] provides estimates of the functional precision for VIZ radiosonde packages as
0.7 hPa for barometric pressure and 0.84K for air temperature. England et al., [1993] suggest a
value of5% be used for relative humidity. Manufacturers specifications list 4% for the carbon
hygristor humidity sensors used by the VIZ radiosonde, but independent investigations have shown the
errors to be dependent on the particular manufactured lot. Therefore, asEnglandet al. [1993] note,
until more complete investigation of the uncertainties is undertaken, 5% is a reasonable estimate for
the humidity measurements. In any case, the dominant contribution to the error in brightness
temperatures inferred from the raobs comes from the 0.84K temperature uncertainty and not from the
5% humidity [Englandet al., 1993].
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
43/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 2 Microwave Atmospheric Water Vapor Absorption Model
28
2-4 Analysis and Results
2-4.1 Hills Ratio Test
Any of the absorption models described above could, in principle, be adjusted to fit our data
set. In order to select the appropriate absorption models and line shapes, we adopt an asymmetry ratio
test formulated by Hill [1986]. This test provides a clear-cut means for assessing the validity of the
VVW and Gross line shape models and is independent of line strength and insensitive to errors in line
width, continuum water vapor absorption and oxygen absorption. Two brightness temperatures
corresponding to frequencies approximately symmetric about the line center are used to compute the
ratio. In this work, 20.7 and 24.0 GHz are used. The ratio is defined as the difference of the two TBs
divided by their averages,
(2.15)
The Hill ratio was computed from the raob-based TB data for all models mentioned above including the
new model presented in this work, and for the water vapor radiometer data itself. Data obtained at
both sites are plotted as a time series in Figure 2.6. This test shows the superiority of VVW versus
Gross. The purpose of including this test here is to demonstrate that we are starting off with the more
reliable line shape model currently available which, as shown here, is the VVW line shape.
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
44/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 2 Microwave Atmospheric Water Vapor Absorption Model
29
Figure 2.6 Hill ratio comparison between various atmospheric models showing agreement of thechosen water vapor absorption line shape with the radiometer data. (See text for explanation ofmodels' acronyms).
Note that the Hill ratio for the W76 and UMF81 models, both of which use the Gross line
shape for the water vapor absorption, yields a much lower value than the corresponding ratio from the
WVR data. The W76 and UMF81 models have average ratios of 0.005 and 0.007, respectively,
whereas the WVR data has an average ratio of 0.045. In contrast, the new and L87R93 models, both
of which use the VVW line shape, yield average ratios of 0.044 and 0.043, respectively. These results
strongly suggest that VVW is the preferred choice for vapor absorption line shape at 22 GHz. Note
that the same finding was obtained byHill[1986] when the ratio test was applied to the originalBecker
and Autler[1946] laboratory data.
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
45/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 2 Microwave Atmospheric Water Vapor Absorption Model
30
2-4.2 Parameter Estimation: Newton-Raphson Iterative Method
The modeled TBs were calculated using the radiative transfer integral and the parameterized
absorption model described in appendix A applied to the balloon profiles. The parameters CL, CW, CC
and CX were estimated using a Newton-Raphson iterative method [Kagiwada andKalaba, 1969]. The
Newton-Raphson method is a fast-converging iterative procedure for nonlinear models. The first
derivative of the nonlinear equation is taken with respect to each of the variables that will be estimated,
in this case CL, CW, CC and CX, which form a vector. The derivative is then evaluated using the initial
values for the four parameters to form the Jacobian matrix given by
(2.16)
The number of rows in the Jacobian is equal to the number of data points (i.e. the number of raob
profiles times the number of frequencies at each). The number of columns is equal to the number of
parameters being estimated. In our case, derivatives were calculated numerically due to the
complexity of the radiative transfer integral equation used to compute the TB. The initial values for the
four parameters were chosen to be the nominal values, i.e. CL =1.0, CW=1.0, CC =1.2 and CX =1.0.
Then the new C parameters are found as
c c cnew initial
= + (2.17)
where
c is the correction for the parameters and is computed from the minimum square error
inversion by
( )
c J J J T t t
B=
1
(2.18)
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
46/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 2 Microwave Atmospheric Water Vapor Absorption Model
31
and
TB
is the difference between the TB modeled with the initial value parameters and the true
(observed) TB. These new values for the Cs are used as initial values for the next iteration. The
process is repeated until changes in each of the parameters are less than 0.001. All four parameters
were estimated simultaneously. This is possible because of the number of frequency channels
employed and the range of humidity conditions (0.6 - 2.9 g/cm2 vapor burden) covered during the span
of our experiments.
2-4.3 New Model Retrieved Parameters
The final retrieved parameters, CL, CW, CCand CX, are shown in Table 2.1. As the table indicates, the
nominal parameters used in the L87R93 model are 3 to 7 percent lower. Figures 2.7a-c depict plots of
the brightness temperature for three climatological conditions. Each graph has a plot corresponding to
the L87R93 and new models. Also shown are the radiometer measured brightnesses. The new
estimated parameters show better agreement with the WVR data. A better indication of this agreement
can be seen in Figures 2.8a-c, where we have plotted the difference in brightness temperature, taking
the L87R93 model as the reference (therefore, by definition the L87R93 model is a line at zero in
Figures 2.8a-c). In these figures we have included the L93 model which, as explained above, is similar
to L87R93 except that it has a higher water vapor line
TABLE 2.1 New retrieved atmospheric absorption parameters
Parameter Liebe87-Rosenkranz93 New Model
CL 1.0 1.064CW 1.0 1.066
CC 1.2 1.234
CX 1.0 1.074
RMS difference 1.36 K 1.05 K
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
47/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 2 Microwave Atmospheric Water Vapor Absorption Model
32
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
frequency [GHz]
(a)
BrightnessT
emperature[K]
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 28.0 30.0 32.0
frequency [GHz]
(b)
BrightnessTemperature[K]
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
frequency [GHz]
(c)
BrightnessTemperature[K]
L87R93
New
WVR
Figure 2.7 Brightness temperature spectra comparison between radiometer data (WVR) andradiosonde-derived data with new and nominal parameters for a vapor burden of (a) 2.9 g/cm2 , (b)2.3 g/cm
2, and (c) 1.3 g/cm
2. (Note that only five channels were in operation during the raob
launches for conditions (b) and (c) ).
Humid
Moderate
dry
8/3/2019 Improved Model for Microwave Brightness Temperature Seen From Space OVer Calm Ocean
48/111
S. Cruz-Pol
Ch. 2 Microwave Atmospheric Water Vapor Absorption Model
33
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
18.0
Top Related